|
|
|
|
|
|
by CountSessine
1636 days ago
|
|
|
Agreed! And TCHAR was the dumbest of all of them. “Not all of our libs/tools/editors support Unicode yet so use TCHAR in the meantime and then one day when our stack supports it fully then you can throw the switch and all your char*’s will be wchar_t*’s and I’m sure that’ll go really well in your codebase.” |
|
|
The reason for TCHAR is not "libs/tools/editors" not supporting Unicode, but the operating system itself. With TCHAR and related types, the same source code could target both Windows 95 and Windows NT, you just have to change a single #define (ok, IIRC there are actually three #defines: UNICODE, _UNICODE, and another one I can't recall at the moment) and recompile.